Even assuming a constitutional right to possess and use the particular types of ammunition within the ambit of section 613.10(g) could be found, plaintiffs simply have not shown that prohibiting sales of such ammunition within City limits imposes a substantial burden on their ability to acquire it.

In this, the Judge ignores what the CA7 said in Ezell and essentially agrees with the IL district Judge - People can go elsewhere to obtain their ammo (or get training at a firing range).

Since the CA9 has given no recognition to Ezell, in Nordyke (the only case that the Judge can cite), the Judge is possibly correct, at this point in litigation.

As for the storage requirements, Judge Seeborg says:

Quote:

Plaintiffs have offered only the possibility that in a very narrow range of circumstances, the delay inherent in rendering a handgun operable or in retrieving it from a locked container theoretically could impair a person’s ability to employ it successfully in self-defense. Even assuming this rises to the level of a “substantial” burden, however, thereby triggering some heightened degree of scrutiny, plaintiffs have not shown the regulation to be overreaching or improper in any way, or that it fails to serve a legitimate governmental interest. Indeed, as noted in Heller itself, nothing in its analysis “suggest[s] the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.” 554 U.S. at 632.

This ignores the Heller Courts pronouncement on the storage laws of D.C. completely (that law was found to be unconstitutional and is very close - almost identical - to the law being challenged in San Francisco). Here, it is clear that Judge Seeborg is selectively reading Heller.